Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/15/06 11:39 PM, shi_huangdi wrote: we burnt down the white house and chased the American army south...did the meaning of pathetic change or am i missing something here?

I hate to break it to you, but that was the British, not the Canadians. And it also happened over 100 years ago when the United States didn't even have a complete army up and running.

uhhhhh

Tony Blair is less scary

ENGERRLAND!!

At 2/15/06 08:36 PM, LadyGrace wrote: It's funny because you're all getting angry.

Much <3 LG, you said it.
----------

At 2/16/06 06:10 PM, Dinodoode wrote: I hate to break it to you, but that was the British, not the Canadians. And it also happened over 100 years ago when the United States didn't even have a complete army up and running.

"The British" were us then, fewel, we were a series of British colonies. The only reason that war of 1812 gets brought up in discussions like this is because it's the only war Canada has ever had with the United States.
----------

At 2/15/06 10:24 PM, AustrianSnowAngel wrote: canadian citizens that are angry?

in most eeuropean states, we refer to canada "wee little weewee country"

canada is weak. austria could take chunk out of canada every day

Haha, we better fear the Austrians, or big bad Austria will come and get us. Oooooo, the Austrians! The Austrians are coming to TEEEEEERMINATE us. Big bad Austria, oh, we better hope they don't team up with Slovakia, OR THEN WE'RE REALLY doomed.

Pff.
----------

At 2/15/06 10:43 PM, AustrianSnowAngel wrote: subs are supposed to swim through ocean, not caught on fire.

Havn't you ever heard of psychological warfare? Trust me, if you saw a submarine suddenly burst into flames, you'd be pretty fucking psyched out.

haha overcompensating canadian. don't you learn anything from past wars.

What past wars? We've been in about three officially in the past 100 years (not counting piece keeping, of course), two of those were under the foreign policy of the UK, and we've been on the winning side of all of them.
----------

At 2/15/06 11:08 PM, Poiiytt wrote: Harper is crap

Martin was crap

Layton is not "good" enough

Duceppe dont really have idea that are shared by the rest of the Canda

Yeah, but atleast all Canadian PMs have been sexy beyond belief.
----------

At 2/15/06 11:36 PM, AustrianSnowAngel wrote: *laughs while at computer*

he merely means your country is pathetic when it comes to militiamen

Canada has one of the biggest gun per person capitas in the world, and the only time our militias have ever actually been in use was the war of 1812, which we won. So what the hell could you possibly be basing that on?

Outside of Ontario, People lack in competence
Canadian Poll options

Steven Harper: Conservative, sociopath nationalist
Paul Martin: Liberal, one slimy mother fucker
Jack Layton: ... He's ok, he lacks in competence, but just a little less then everyone else
Jean Duceppe: Good luck becoming a prime minister when you've got 3/4 support of one province, becoming leader just so he can seperate from Canada

those are the main options

Haha, we better fear the Austrians, or big bad Austria will come and get us. Oooooo, the Austrians! The Austrians are coming to TEEEEEERMINATE us. Big bad Austria, oh, we better hope they don't team up with Slovakia, OR THEN WE'RE REALLY doomed.

How the hell did Austria get dragged into this?
I doubt the Austrians could do much, we've been winning against them for the past century, namely WWi and WWII.......(yes I know, Germans. Austria's close enough.......they're all just Huns anyways.... ;) )

Canada wiped our asses after handing them to us in 1812. 200 years later, they continuously bring it up......

That has absolutely no relevance on how well you'd do TODAY. It's a GREAT indication of how well the French did against the British in America, but a shitty comparison for anything other than that.

A few war game losses mean nothing either. If anything, (from what I hear about the India game), we got cocky, and you put us in our places. Well, it's a wake up call, for sure.

But after two wars and 4+ years of Urban Combat experience, I wouldn't give Canada a dime of a chance against the US. You could resort to guerilla tactics, wouldn't matter. We're well experienced with extreme forms of guerillas (suicide bombers and roadside bombs).

India rocked our asses (even with our shiny F-15s), we took it as a lesson, and came out with the F-22.

Point is, even if we lose ALL our military games, it don't prove a thing, cause, barring incompetent generals, we learn from them.

At 2/15/06 08:08 PM, Lightknight92 wrote: So? how about Bush? He looks like a monkey but you don't see anyone complaining about it. Cut it out.

Nice opinion on Politics by the way.

Actually... most of us do mention that.

On a hate scale of 1-10. I give this thread a 7.

well what else do you expect from canada atleaste its not bush

At 2/16/06 05:40 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 2/15/06 11:47 PM, TovaryshIvan wrote: I was pointing out the fact that the Canadian Military is not shitty, and can put up a fight.
Perhaps you've forgotten Vimy Ridge and Paschendale?

Arent you supposed to be that fag who has a hard on for Russia?

Change of loyalties?

Uh did I denounce Russia there at all?
You are a complete faggot.

Not my fault.

You elect officials for policy-making skills, not looks.

If all you people are going to do is mock his appearence, do yourselves a favor and drink some Draino(TM).

At 2/16/06 06:52 PM, Imperator wrote:

Haha, we better fear the Austrians, or big bad Austria will come and get us. Oooooo, the Austrians! The Austrians are coming to TEEEEEERMINATE us. Big bad Austria, oh, we better hope they don't team up with Slovakia, OR THEN WE'RE REALLY doomed.

How the hell did Austria get dragged into this?
I doubt the Austrians could do much, we've been winning against them for the past century, namely WWi and WWII.......(yes I know, Germans. Austria's close enough.......they're all just Huns anyways.... ;) )

Canada wiped our asses after handing them to us in 1812. 200 years later, they continuously bring it up......

That has absolutely no relevance on how well you'd do TODAY. It's a GREAT indication of how well the French did against the British in America, but a shitty comparison for anything other than that.

A few war game losses mean nothing either. If anything, (from what I hear about the India game), we got cocky, and you put us in our places. Well, it's a wake up call, for sure.

But after two wars and 4+ years of Urban Combat experience, I wouldn't give Canada a dime of a chance against the US. You could resort to guerilla tactics, wouldn't matter. We're well experienced with extreme forms of guerillas (suicide bombers and roadside bombs).

India rocked our asses (even with our shiny F-15s), we took it as a lesson, and came out with the F-22.

Point is, even if we lose ALL our military games, it don't prove a thing, cause, barring incompetent generals, we learn from them.

ya sorry imperator it was just to prove an ignorant Austrian how wrong she was that Canada was pathetic. the war of 1812 wasn't really relevant but a victory is a victory and the war games were just to further show her that our troops can fight with the best of them (though Americans aren't necessarilly the best, neither are the Canadians, but anyway)

it is because we are that much more manly than austrians

At 2/15/06 07:57 PM, Wes_is_king wrote: Look at the primeminister you elected! Yuck!

They never let the Reds in.

Congrats Canada! ^_^

At 2/17/06 05:03 PM, ZeroAsALimit wrote:

At 2/15/06 07:57 PM, Wes_is_king wrote: Look at the primeminister you elected! Yuck!

They never let the Reds in.

Congrats Canada! ^_^

seconded

At 2/15/06 10:43 PM, AustrianSnowAngel wrote:

At 2/15/06 10:35 PM, CadillacClock wrote:

At 2/15/06 10:24 PM, AustrianSnowAngel wrote:

At 2/15/06 08:36 PM, LadyGrace wrote: It's funny because you're all getting angry.

canadian citizens that are angry?

in most eeuropean states, we refer to canada "wee little weewee country"

canada is weak. austria could take chunk out of canada every day

We're bigger than you. Our army is also ranked higher, ma'am. We even beat the American troops in training simulations. We just lack warheads and submarines.

subs are supposed to swim through ocean, not caught on fire.

Stephen Harper reminds me of a little kid. The big teeth and beady eyes. I voted NDP... They really dominated in the poles. At least in Ontario.

haha overcompensating canadian. don't you learn anything from past wars.

Asses, Canada didn't fight very many wars and the wars they did fight, they were our allies. Don't piss off Canada by the way they're almost our only ally you fucking dumbasses.

Don't piss off Canada by the way they're almost our only ally you fucking dumbasses.

**cough UK cough**

At 2/17/06 08:50 PM, Seanman wrote: Don't piss off Canada by the way they're almost our only ally you fucking dumbasses.

Hes right, by golly!!! What would we ever do if we got in a war and we didnt have the 27th Canadian Mounted Moose Lancers on our side? Lose, THATS what!!!!

But after two wars and 4+ years of Urban Combat experience, I wouldn't give Canada a dime of a chance against the US. You could resort to guerilla tactics, wouldn't matter. We're well experienced with extreme forms of guerillas (suicide bombers and roadside bombs).

Do you hontestly think we could win, I mean completely win a war with Canada today, it is practicly impossbile to occupy a country Guirrilla tactis always prevail in time. Unless the UN had nothing do do with it and we used "dirty" tactics. Were having enough trouble with Iraq securing the insugrents there with the constant funding and resupplying from neighboring countries. (I'm American BTW)

At 2/18/06 12:08 AM, Shifty55 wrote:
Do you hontestly think we could win, I mean completely win a war with Canada today, it is practicly impossbile to occupy a country Guirrilla tactis always prevail in time. Unless the UN had nothing do do with it and we used "dirty" tactics. Were having enough trouble with Iraq securing the insugrents there with the constant funding and resupplying from neighboring countries. (I'm American BTW)

Yes, as long as the politicians do not decide to end the war. Kinda like Vietnam, we only "lost" because we gave up, not because we were getting hammered. I think we lost 60,000 or somethin like that, compared to 4 million enemies. That's like 1 American dead for every 66 enemies, that's pretty good. Even in Iraq it's a similar situation. I'm sure the insurgency knows about Vietnam, and how America has no tolerance for a guerilla or war of attrition.

For all the talk about the Army being stretched too thin, I really don't see that as the case.

We've got 1.4 million active troops (roughly).
We've got 130,000 in Iraq.
350,000 around the world total (googled some sites, got this as the avg)

That's roughly 25% of our total active forces deployed worldwide.
I'll take the anti-war.com stats on casualties at their max and remove those from our total, 50,373.

So now we're up to 400,000 troops unavailable at the immediate moment.
That's not even 30% of our total active status troops. And this doesn't even include reserves.

We've got enough man power and weaponry, should the need arise, to invade Syria and Iran while still engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment. We could send 500,000 troops to each country, and completely deploy our active army. Logistically and financially we'd break our damned backs, and being engaged for more than a week would probably just cripple us. Canada, being an immediate neighbor, would probably fair as a less daunting task, considering how short supply lines would be, etc etc.

This is ONLY for active troops, not even counting reserves, or a draft.
Canada simply doesn't have what it takes, but then again, there isn't really a need for them to have a massive army, we've been allied for some time now, and that won't change anytime soon........

Uh, It's not exactly in terms in manpower that the United States would be stretched too.
You have to take into account all the following -
Iran has an army of 1.7 million ACTIVE (Which is more than America), With a reserve of 18 million able bodied persons. The Iranian army is well organized, well equipped, and well trained.
So the United States is going to have a pretty large military force to topple Iran, Iran is not going to be no walk over like Iraq.
Syria, Yea they aren't going to stand up as strong as Iran for sure. But having troops spread out over Iran, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Is just not possible.
Think of the Logistics required to keep four seperate large armies fuelled and fully supplied. The United States would be pushing it in terms of manpower, and definatly spending way to much in financial terms.

Iran has an army of 1.7 million ACTIVE (Which is more than America), With a reserve of 18 million able bodied persons. The Iranian army is well organized, well equipped, and well trained.

Link? All I get are 350,000 active army soldiers, with 220,000 conscripts as Iran's army. I'm assuming their air force and navy amount to much less.

Which means their Guard Corp has got to make up the rest right? Unless you're totally bullshitting that number, which I kinda am leaning towards at the moment........

Lemme tell y'all a little somethin' 'bout modern combat!
The fight between Canada and <insert major world power> is irrelevant. Big powers don't fight each other any more, it's to costly and doesn't amount to much. Today, the wars are big powers invading small, 3rd world countries to 'liberate' them. Really, it's just colonization. If you think about it, WW1 has never really ended, the same things are still being fought over, true, differnent sides and shit but powers are still trying to colonize places for the empire blah blah blah. No major powers are going to fight each other, at least not any time soon. We're all going to die in a nuclear holocuast though, don't worry, it's just not going to happen for awhile.
God bless us, everyone.

WHOA

he DOES like like spongebob squarepants

OMG

CAPS

HOLY SHIT that guy looks like a moron.

At 2/18/06 03:13 AM, Imperator wrote:

Iran has an army of 1.7 million ACTIVE (Which is more than America), With a reserve of 18 million able bodied persons. The Iranian army is well organized, well equipped, and well trained.

Link? All I get are 350,000 active army soldiers, with 220,000 conscripts as Iran's army. I'm assuming their air force and navy amount to much less.

Which means their Guard Corp has got to make up the rest right? Unless you're totally bullshitting that number, which I kinda am leaning towards at the moment........

Your just looking at the Army....
There is also the Air Force, Navy, Revolutionary Guard, Defense Forces, Logistics troops, etc...
You can't just compare army sizes together....

stevan harper is the spawn of satan

Fuck off, Post some that adds to the argument or shut up.

At 2/18/06 03:16 PM, Nojoy wrote: stevan harper is the spawn of satan

I heard it was the other way around.

At 2/18/06 06:39 PM, FUCKYOUYOUFUCKINGFAG wrote:

At 2/18/06 03:16 PM, Nojoy wrote: stevan harper is the spawn of satan

I heard it was the other way around.

Deep...deep.